If you argue this way: the KS campaign information quite prominently featured the clip which shows the 200 degrees as diagonal measure - pretty transparent what they meant, right ?
But if you want to get excited about the 200 degrees - I can‘t take that serious unless you got even more excited about the „8K“. So did you ? That, after all, is as wrong and even features in their product name !
At some point in time ppl have to accept that 8k or 5k in VR is not the same as one would think for monitors or TVs.
i had to accept as well that 8k or 4K in TVs is completely false when coming from cinematic post production where these terms got defined in 1st place, and these are both simple 2d formats. All other use cases is marketing BS really.
FoV claims vs measurable specs work for me as long as all marketing is using the same method. I usually would expect diagonal FoV of rendered image that the optical system (lens) will be able to cover. The experienced FoV varies anyway on eye lens distance.
But back on topic
The numbers and claims of StarVR simply don’t make sense at the moment. Clarification is needed by independent reviewers.
I also had the feeling “between the lines” that the testers were not mega-wowed by the increase of resolution. I personaly can confirm as well that resolution is suprisingly at least not the biggest factor in overall qualiy perception. Especially comparing Oculus Go, various devices with gear and Vive/Oculus shows that. I’d say pannel-lenses-refreshrate-resolution is my personal order due the experiences I made so far
Resolution should in theory make a bigger difference. So the sheet specs not matching the percieved res is indeed odd.
No need to do diagonal I think, but one do need to use the bitmap size and field of view per eye, because a good portion of the left and right views overlap, to give you stereo vision.
…and since the per-eye FOV is rarely listed, I tend to favour first calculating the vertical ppd, because the vertical FOV is common for both eyes;
In the case of StarVR: 1464/130=ca.11,26ppd
If Pimax’s claimed vertical FOV claim can be trusted, and vertical screen utilisation is 100%, their’s would be: 1440/120=12ppd
(Note that I used the size of the image actually sent to the HMD, rather than the sceen native, for effective image resolution)
In other words: Much like In the post above your’s, where the poster used an assumed 150° horizontal monocular FOV for both the Pimax and StarVR, which is indeed what was claimed by Pimax in the same FAQ I got 120 vertical from. (I’ll however observe that in that FAQ, Pimax also state they have about 80% horizontal screen utilisation (haven’t heard about 50 before, but maybe that’s including the rounded corners…?), so more: 2560*0.8/150=13.6ppd, than 17. (The FOV he used for CV1 was also significantly enough too much larger than real life, that it produces a 20% error)).
Well OpenXR is slotted to replace Valve’s OpenVR. I would guess should be utilized well within a year. Software Devs it’ll be a huge boon. Consider Killing Floor Incursion; there are 2 distinct versions. Oculus & Steam; unfortunately you can’t play between the 2 versions (at last read anyway) due to structure differences at least said by Tripwire.